Relevance? The LM wasn't 'dropped' from 10m. It followed a trajectory, losing mass and decreasing in velocity until it touched down. You're missing out so many variables to your process. The 'thrust' wasn't constant - your question makes no sense in the context of this debate.ok for the last time, a mental exercise please answer the following if the lm was dropped from say only 10 m above the lunar surface how much thrust would it take to land it safely, your own maths please
Yes, at some point the LM was 10m above the surface, and the engine was producing under 3000 ft-lbs of thrust.at some point in its descent the lm was 10 m above the surface, so how much thrust did it need for the last 10 metres? simple q imo
still that would blow a shit load of debris from beneath it leaving only bare rock and scorch marksYes, at some point the LM was 10m above the surface, and the engine was producing under 3000 ft-lbs of thrust.
Not according to math.still that would blow a shit load of debris from beneath it leaving only bare rock and scorch marks
You make me laugh too, man.ha ha man u make me laugh the fukin thing was 6 tonnes lol
No. The regolith has a "sticky" quality that cannot be simulated in atmosphere. Sunny Jim (iirc) posted a pic that showed plain blast erosion under the descent stage.still that would blow a shit load of debris from beneath it leaving only bare rock and scorch marks
I understand theses calculations to be approximations made from 'radio communications'. Where is the original documentation pertaining to these calculations? Also where could one touch view or witness the ORIGINAL video footage of said moonlanding?The LRV was folded on the descent stage of the LM (as CB told you on the previous page). The chassis was hinged in three places and the wheels were pivoted nearly flat against the folded chassis occupying only 30 ft cubed. Not 'so fukin big'.
The lunar module didn't produce 10,000 lbs of thrust during touchdown. It was, in fact, producing less than 3,000 lbs as it was nearing the surface from an engine bell about 5ft across. The landing pads were extended before touchdown, leaving a distance between the engine nozzle and the lunar surface of approximately 7ft at touchdown.
There's some math involved, but the bottom line is that the blast pressure of the engine exhaust was only about 1 lb per sq inch when the LM landed. That's roughly the same amount of pressure produced by the astronauts hopping around on one leg; enough to disturb the lunar dust and some scorching, but not nearly enough for the 'crater' conspiracy theorists expect to see.
Too lazy to google?
1st hit: http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm
Articles from the Daily Mail? The trashy UK tabloid newspaper?! The next page probably had a riveting piece on celebrity baby names..
If you scroll down and READ IT or even google it yourself. You would see that they were referring to the moscow times.You believe what the Russian Govt says.. do you believe everything Kim Jong Un says too. .you do know the daily mail is a tabloid paper just like the enquirer and star
we live on a flat earth brother, contained in areas of purposefully designed societal systems. Our world view is given to us. Our education system rewards those who can parrot the textbooks, the text books written by themselves. Try and prove me wrong my mate.so now im actually bothering to look into this ive spotted another fantastic piece of utter shite...they saw no stars from the surface of the moon....lol and the pictures prove it ha ha